linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
	dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7 v1]powerpc: Free up four PTE bits to accommodate memory keys
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:22:43 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tw3k1obo.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1496711109-4968-2-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>

Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> writes:

> Rearrange  PTE   bits to  free  up  bits 3, 4, 5  and  6  for
> memory keys. Bit 3, 4, 5, 6 and 57  shall  be used for memory
> keys.
>
> The patch does the following change to the 64K PTE format
>
> H_PAGE_BUSY moves from bit 3 to bit 7
> H_PAGE_F_SECOND which occupied bit 4 moves to the second part
> 	of the pte.
> H_PAGE_F_GIX which  occupied bit 5, 6 and 7 also moves to the
> 	second part of the pte.
>
> The second part of the PTE will hold
>    a (H_PAGE_F_SECOND|H_PAGE_F_GIX)  for  64K page backed pte,
>    and sixteen (H_PAGE_F_SECOND|H_PAGE_F_GIX)  for 4k  backed
> 	pte.
>
> the four  bits((H_PAGE_F_SECOND|H_PAGE_F_GIX) that represent a slot
> is initialized to 0xF indicating a invalid slot. if a hashpage does
> get  allocated  to  the  0xF  slot, it is released and not used. In
> other words, even  though  0xF  is  a valid slot we discard it  and
> consider it as invalid slot(HPTE_SOFT_INVALID). This  gives  us  an
> opportunity to  not  depend on a bit in the primary PTE in order to
> determine the validity of a slot.
>
> When  we  release  a  0xF slot we also release a legitimate primary
> slot  and  unmap  that  entry. This  is  to  ensure  that we do get
> a legimate non-0xF slot the next time we retry for a slot.
>
> Though treating 0xF slot as invalid reduces the number of available
> slots and make have a effect on the performance, the probabilty
> of hitting a 0xF is extermely low.
>
> Compared  to the current scheme, the above described scheme reduces
> the number of false hash table updates  significantly  and  has the
> added  advantage  of  releasing  four  valuable  PTE bits for other
> purpose.
>
> This idea was jointly developed by Paul Mackerras, Aneesh, Michael
> Ellermen and myself.
>
> 4K PTE format remain unchanged currently.
>

Can you also split this patch into two. One which changes
__hash_page_4k() ie, linux pte format w.r.t 4k hash pte. Second patch
with changes w.r.t __hash_page_64k() ie, pte format w.r.t 64k hash pte.

-aneesh

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-06-13  4:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-06  1:05 [RFC PATCH 0/7 v1] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7 v1]powerpc: Free up four PTE bits to accommodate memory keys Ram Pai
2017-06-12  6:57   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-12 22:20     ` Ram Pai
2017-06-13  2:02       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-13 21:51         ` Ram Pai
2017-06-13  4:52   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2017-06-13 21:52     ` Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7 v1]powerpc: Implement sys_pkey_alloc and sys_pkey_free system call Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7 v1]powerpc: store and restore the key state across context switches Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7 v1]powerpc: Implementation for sys_mprotect_pkey() system call Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7 v1]powerpc: Program HPTE key protection bits Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7 v1]powerpc: Handle exceptions caused by violation of key protection Ram Pai
2017-06-06  1:05 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7 v1]powerpc: Deliver SEGV signal on protection key violation Ram Pai
2017-06-16  9:20   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-16 10:33     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-06-16 19:15       ` Ram Pai
2017-06-16 22:54         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-06-22 21:41           ` Ram Pai
2017-06-16 19:10     ` Ram Pai
2017-06-16 11:18   ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-16 19:35     ` Ram Pai
2017-06-20  7:07 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7 v1] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87tw3k1obo.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com \
    --to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).